Dismissed

M/s.Madhava Constructions, Civil Contractors H.No.10-1-471 v. The Addl.Commissioner (Ct) Legal, Fac,O/o.Commissioner

Telangana HC1 Feb 2010WP/24879/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order declining grant of stay in a sales tax revision appeal. The High Court held it was not an appellate authority over the Commissioner's discretion to deny stay. Finding no perversity, it dismissed the writ petition without deciding on the merits of the substantive appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; learned Tribunal ordered to dispose of pending appeal on merits.

M/s.Madhava Constructions, Civil Contractors… — GST and Indirect Tax | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶3

WRIT PETITION No. 24879 of 2009

¶4

Dated: 1-2-2010

¶5

Between: M/s Madava Constructions, rep. by its Managing Partner Sri Ch. Venkateswara Rao …Petitioner and The Addl. Commissioner (CT)(Legal)((FAC), Hyderabad and others

¶6

…Respondents.

¶7

Oral Order: (Per GR, J)

¶8

The order of the 1^st respondent dated 29-9-2009 declining grant of stay is assailed in this writ petition.

¶9

The petitioner is a firm engaged in executing works contracts and registered as a dealer on the rolls of the 3^rd respondent. For the assessment year 2004-05 it had executed works contracts of laying bituminous roads by entering into contract with the Public Works and the Panchayat Raj Departments in Karimnagar District. For this purpose, the petitioner claims to have purchased bitumen pursuant to the agreement with PWD and Panchayat Raj Departments, from the Indian Oil Corporation, Chennai. The bitumen is stated to have moved to the work site from Chennai, asserted to be an inter-State movement occasioned by the contract with the Departments concerned. The 3^rd respondent-Assessing authority was persuaded by the claim of the petitioner and allowed exemption on the turnover of Rs.19,66,145/- being the value of bitumen involved in the road laying works, as it constitutes deemed sale in the course of inter-State trade and commerce.

¶10

However, the 2^nd respondent exercising revisional power, had, after a due process, withdrawn the exemption granted by the 3^rd respondent and levied tax at 8 per cent on the bitumen value of Rs.19,66,145/- by the order dated 20-9-2007. Aggrieved by this revisional order of the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in T.A.No. 714 of 2008 and applied to the 1^st respondent for grant of stay. Before the revisional authority, the petitioner does not appear to have produced the contract agreement between the petitioner and the PWD and Panchayat Raj Departments, on the basis and pursuant to which the petitioner had claimed that the bitumen was moved in the course of interState trade. This has resulted in the order of revision.

¶11

As is apparent from the order impugned, the 1^st respondent considered

¶12

the application of the petitioner for stay and has recorded cogent reasons for declining exercise of discretion to grant stay. This Court is not constituted an appellate authority on the discretion exercised by the 1^st respondent. As the order of the 1^st respondent is not facially perverse, we find no reason to interfere with what is a rational exercise of discretion by the 1^st respondent. There are no merits.

¶13

The writ petition is dismissed. None of the observations made in this order shall be construed as an expression by this Court on the merits of the petitioner’s substantive appeal pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A.No. 714 of 2008. The learned Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. No costs.

¶14

__________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J

¶15

______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J

¶16

1^st February, 2010. GRR

M/s.Madhava Constructions, Civil Contractors H.No.10-1-471 v. The Addl.Commissioner (Ct) Legal, Fac,O/o.Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Madhava Constructions, Civil Contractors H.No.10-1-471 v. The Addl.Commissioner (Ct) Legal, Fac,O/o.Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxman Chit Fund and Finance Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax (Tds)

Jyothi Chits and Finances Vs The Commissioenr of Income Tax ( Tds )

Devi Chits and Finances, Vs The Commissioenr of Income Tax ( Tds )

M/s. Indus Towers Ltd., Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s. Sri Sai Communications Net Work Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Carrier Air - Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd., Vs Joint Commissioner ( Ct ) Legal )